Statement: Should there be a complete ban on use of all types of chemical pesticides in India?
Arguments:
No. The pests will destroy all the crops and the farmers will have nothing to harvest.
Yes. The chemical pesticides used in agriculture pollute the water underground and this has become a serious health hazard.
Options
A. Only argument I is strong
B. Only argument II is strong
C. Either I or II is strong
D. Neither I nor II is strong
E. Both I and II are strong
Correct Answer
Both I and II are strong
Explanation
Clearly, pesticides are meant to prevent the crops from harmful pests. But at the same time, they get washed away with water and contaminate the groundwater. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
Statement and Argument problems
Search Results
1. Statement: Should officers accepting bribe be punished?
Arguments:
No. Certain circumstances may have compelled them to take bribe.
Yes. They should do the job they are entrusted with, honestly.
Clearly, persons with criminal background cannot stand to serve as the representatives of the common people. So, they should not be allowed to contest elections. Thus, only argument I holds, while II does not.
3. Statement: Should the sex determination test during pregnancy be completely banned?
Arguments:
Yes. This leads to indiscriminate female foeticide and eventually will lead to social imbalance.
No. People have a right to know about their unborn child.
Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so as they want to only a boy child and do away with a girl child. So, argument I holds. Also, people have a right to know only about the health, development and general well-being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.
4. Statement: Is pen mightier than a sword?
Arguments:
Yes. Writers influence the thinking of the people.
No. With the help of physical force one can conquer all.
Physical force can accomplish a task by compulsion, while the influential writings can mould the thinking of an individual and change his discretion into accomplishing the task wilfully. So, only argument I holds strong.
5. Statement: Should our country extend generous behaviour and goodwill to our erring and nagging neighbours?
Arguments:
Yes. Goodwill always pays dividend.
No. Our generous behaviour and goodwill will be considered as our weakness.
Clearly, a good behaviour may at some point of time lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such behaviour may be mistaken for our weakness and it would be difficult to continue with it if the other country doesn't stop its sinister activities. Hence, II also holds.
6. Statement: Should cutting of trees be banned altogether?
Arguments:
Yes. It is very much necessary to do so to restore ecological balance.
No. A total ban would harm timber based industries.
Clearly, trees play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance and so must be preserved. So, argument I holds. Also, trees form the basic source of timber and a complete ban on cutting of trees would harm timber based industries. So, only a controlled cutting of trees should be allowed and the loss replenished by planting more trees. So, argument II is also valid.
7. Statement: Should there be a restriction on the migration of people from one state to another state in India?
Arguments:
No. Any Indian citizen has a basic right to stay at any place of his/her choice and hence they cannot be stopped.
Yes. This is the way to effect an equitable distribution of resources across the states in India.
Clearly, refugees are people forced out of their homeland by some misery and need shelter desperately. So, argument II holds. Argument I against the statement is vague.
9. Statement: Should India create a huge oil reserve like some Western countries to face difficult situations in future?
Arguments:
No. There is no need to block huge amount of foreign exchange and keep the money idle.
Yes. This will help India withstand shocks of sudden rise in oil prices due to unforeseen circumstances.
Oil, being an essential commodity, our country must keep it in reserve. So, argument I is vague, while argument II holds as it provides a substantial reason for the same.
10. Statement: Should there be more than one High Court in each state in India?
Arguments:
No. This will be a sheer wastage of taxpayers' money.
Yes. This will help reduce the backlog of cases pending for a very long time.
Clearly, an increase in the number of High Courts will surely speed up the work and help to do away with the pending cases. So, argument II holds strong. In light of this, the expenditure incurred would be 'utilization', not 'wastage' of money. So, argument I does not hold.